Anyone wanna Debate?
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:32pm
Thread Topic: Anyone wanna Debate?
-
Anyways, as a PROP 2nd speaker i would like to start the debate if you are fine with that.
-
Sure
-
I WANNA DEBATE
IM LIKE A DEMOCRAT
MY ARGUMENTS MAKE NO SENSE BUT I REALLY WANNA WIN SO I TRY ANYWAYS -
zane help me be on the opp side
-
okay what are we debating
-
Okay, shalle we start?
-
The U.S. has not done enough to combating the Ebola disease. We're saying it has done enough. Our third point is Ebola, the contagious disease, cannot be run away from or cured in an instant. Our fourth point is drugs are being tested for effectiveness. You can change them, of course, if you'd like.
ye -
:)
-
Anyways onto my second speaker speech. Feel free to POI and all.
-
Ebola. This disease has been killing hundreds but has the United STates even bothered to try at all? No they have not. People are dying each they and yes they are "trying" however but do not know how to actually control the disease.
Hi my name is Icical dragon on the Proposition side of this case and we the PROPOSITION strongly agree that the US has not done enough to combat ebola. -
In their 3rd argument they said ebola cant be cured from an instant however if the United States health workers were more secure and found a way to CURE the disease the ebola disease wouldnt need to be killing hundreds.
Their fourth point states about "drugs are being tested" yeah great, they are being tested but it takes them ONE YEAR just to test a SINGLE vaccine on ANIMALS? When on earth will it be tested on humans and be released to be PROTECTED FROM THE VIRUS? -
A3:The US hasnt continued helping to prevent the spread of ebola after the Americans got the virus.
R3: Our reasoning for this argument is that there have been no progress into creating a type of vaccination or a preaching of how to prevent getting ebola other than just posters.
E3: Our evidence for this argument is that according to the FOX News (January 4, 2015), Two companies, GlaxoSmithKline and NewLink Genetics, have begun conducting clinical trials for a potential Ebola vaccine, while five more pharmaceutical manufacturers are reportedly planning clinical trials for the first quarter of 2015. One of those companies, Johnson & Johnson, has said it will begin trials in this month. It is also to that point in where since the ebola outbreak lasted for 1 year, and the vaccinations are coming in late and just starting with the project, even animals are starting to die from this disease. According to the Gizmodo a public news and magazine website(January 17, 2014), states There is a side to the Ebola crisis that, perhaps understandably, has received little media attention: the threat it poses to our nearest cousins, the great apes of Africa. At this moment in time Ebola is the single greatest threat to the survival of gorillas and chimpanzees. This all shows that if the U.S. were to create a vaccine sooner, these organisms wouldnt be needing to suffer from the virus.
I3: The impact of this argument is that the United States took over one year into creating and just starting to make the vaccinations for ebola. If action was taken and tested sooner these patients and organisms wouldnt need to suffer as much from the disease.
A4: Our fourth argument is that the United States is more focused on other charities and events rather than the epidemic.
R4: Our reasoning for this argument is that rather than the government spending time on the ebola epidemic they are focusing on other charities such as ALS in which only 1 out of 10 Americans get compared to Ebola in which in Africa 8/10 get.
E4: Our evidence for this argument is that according to the Missouri Daily News (January 2015), more has been donated to the ALS Association which only affects only 1 out of 10 Americans. The disease has a survival rate of 60 percent of living for more than 10 years with the disease. Ebola on the other hand only has a 10 percent survival rate but only with the proper medical tools and treatment. Approximately 17 billion was raised to the ALS Association and only about 11 billion were sent to the Ebola fund in which is needed to send military troops, medical doctors, and research on the disease. The ALS Foundation has only been going on for 7 months and the Ebola Foundations only led to about one year to send scientific research on the virus. Also according to the New York Times (September 9, 2014), more have been sent to Breast Cancer Associations, in which the disease have decreased as double as it was in previous years. One in every 100 Americans get the disease in a yearly basis, but again more is being sent to Breast Cancer Associations, when it could be sent to a halt and being sent to Ebola Foundations.
I4: The impact of this argument is that more is being spenT on other charities rather than a huge disease epidemic that is killing hundreds of people per day. Less money is going into the Ebola Foundations, meaning that there would be less scientific research into the virus as well as sending doctors to help patients who have the virus. -
Information
-
Yes?
-
You attempted to refute our third argument by stating that "if the United States health workers were more secure and found a way to cure the disease the Ebola disease wouldn't need to be killing hundreds." However, you cannot simply come up with a vaccine over night. Doctors haven't known much about the disease, and it JUST started an outbreak in 2014. Making a vaccine takes time, and you're trying to state that you're expecting the U.S. to poof up a vaccine. Logic doesn't work that way.
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
